Justice JJ Munir of the Allahabad High Court pointed out that courts often refrain from using contempt powers out of respect for citizens’ right to free speech.
Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court expressed concern over litigants becoming increasingly aggressive towards the judiciary due to courts’ reluctance to use their contempt of court powers.
ALSO READ: “Supreme Court Strikes Down Delhi HC’s Contempt Review Order, Calls It Invalid”
Justice JJ Munir of the Allahabad High Court pointed out that courts often refrain from using contempt powers out of respect for citizens’ right to free speech. However, this liberal approach should not be misused to make baseless, scandalous allegations against judges.
He stated, “It is unfortunate that in contemporary times, litigants have turned aggressive because for one reason or the other, the Courts are eschewing invocation of their power of criminal contempt. The restraint or the hesitation comes from honoring the citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and a fortiorari (sic) their right to ventilate their grievances. This does not mean that any kind of scandalous allegations without basis can be hurled at the Court and got away with.”
Background:
This observation came in the context of a petition challenging the decision of the Board of Revenue to refuse a request for transferring a case. The petitioner had asked the court to transfer the case from the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) 3rd, Bareilly to another court, claiming that the presiding officer was biased.
The petitioner argued that the officer had been giving long dates for hearings, which allegedly helped the other party in the case. The petitioner also accused the officer of being involved in some kind of conspiracy with the other party.
ALSO READ: Rajasthan High Court Orders Withholding Salaries of IAS Officers Over Contempt Case
However, the Allahabad High Court dismissed these allegations, finding them utterly baseless and unsupported by any evidence. The court emphasized that such accusations without proper evidence could not be accepted, as they were damaging to the integrity of the judiciary.
`The court observed, “The fact that an application which the petitioner desires to be heard first before final hearing, has not been taken up separately, is a matter which may be an illegal course on the Presiding Officer’s part to adopt or it may not be so, but it is no ground to interfere bias. A wrong order or a wrong procedure does not lead to an interference of bias. Likewise, mere delay on the part of the Presiding Officer in hearing the revision is no ground to infer bias.”
In its order, the court made it clear that the delay in hearings or perceived laxity by the presiding officer should not be automatically interpreted as bias against any party involved in the case. The court further emphasized the seriousness of accusing a presiding officer of conniving with a party without solid evidence.
“If an allegation of connivance by any party is made against a Presiding Officer, it has to be one with the highest sense of responsibility and material of sterling quality. It is another matter that the Court hearing the transfer matter or whatever forum the complaint is laid may accept it or not. But, to make such an application without any material or circumstances to point out, shows not a sense of freedom to express amongst citizens who are litigants but virtually extreme indiscipline and lack of sense of propriety, to say the least.”
Justice Munir also emphasized that a sense of propriety and balance is crucial for maintaining a civil society. He underscored that citizens must exercise their rights with responsibility, especially when it comes to making serious allegations against judges and judicial officers.
As a result of the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner’s allegations, the court dismissed the request and imposed a cost of Rs.5,000 on the petitioner.
In the case, Advocate Umesh Chandra Tiwari represented the petitioner, while Advocate Sher Bahadur Singh appeared for the respondent.
